tv [untitled] September 27, 2012 8:00am-8:30am PDT
look at that building permit and whatever was required of how they keep that property if there was -- i don't think there probably was, and in general, i know this is not the only walgreens where there are concerns about their maintenance and maybe at some further time, we should have a hearing, maybe somebody from walgreens, we could identify some of those problems, i feel for the neighbor, it's, you know, i understand the challenge that you have and it sounds like the project sponsor with the chart and all the suggestions he's made to remedy things is more than amenable to working with you and has every intent to hose down the street, to pick up the street and make things better, to the extent that we can look into walgreens and it sounds the city can work on mta to work on the parking issues and we can solve that,
it wouldn't be good the penalize this business for the thing that is are really are problems that have more to do with other bad actors. >> commissioner hillis? >> i agree with the motion, just a question on the parking. why is there no parking on the street, is that a response for people trying to park at walgreens? >> it's a major thorough fair to get from ocean to monterey, the street is currently a two-way street and it's narrow so they have removed parking between 7 a.m. to 6 p.m. to allow for a faster travel time between ocean and monterey. >> i think it's counterintuitive, you may want to engage mta and put parking back. parking could be a way to calm traffic, you know, and not get people to use it as a cut
through or drive so fast and not park. if there's cars parked there, people are not going to park on the sidewalk, and i think walgreens is a problem with the cut through, but changing their parking and maybe adding some parking, if not, the entire parking situation, i'm supportive of the restaurant but i think those issues need to look at. >> we're trying to look into turning it into a one-way and maybe that would allow for the extra parking, i am going to be working on the beautification on these issues. >> commissioner moore. >> i am supportive of the application, a small entrepreneurial business is trying -- it's a bold move,
it's a strong sign for neighborhood revitalization and i'm glad that asian neighborhoods were able to design and mediate some of the problems. the question i have is has the dr applicant been given any language assistance to fully understand that she will also have an on-site coordinator with whom she could later communicate issues should there be any problems which i don't assume will be arising because i think there's enough sensitivity from the operator already brought to the subject matter, however, to create that language assistance in the future i think would be helpful because i sense that this commission will support the approval of this dr, however, i feel we should extend the future ability for the two parties to communicate in the future. >> can staff respond to that question?
>> michael staff, planning department staff. if i understand you, commissioner moore, you would like the sponsor to have a translator? >> either you or somebody, there's always like -- >> okay, the department does have those services if requested, yes. >> but once a restaurant is realized, there should be a phone number by which any neighborhood complaints could come forward to the restaurant operator and be dealt with in a constructive manner. >> commissioner moore, that would be on a conditional use authorization as one of our standards. >> so, that would not be part of it? >> that would not be part of a motion. >> then i think we should at least encourage the future
operator to provide continued outreach and sensitivity to the community should any mutually -- issues of mutual concern arise and they can be resolved in an amenable way. >> and i believe the project sponsor has been the liaison for the restaurant and he will ko*n to be. i don't know if we need to necessarily put a condition of approval to that effect. he is there as a lee iaison to the neighborhood if they want to contact. >> they are communicating with the dr requestor's niece who was english speaking and i don't know if she's here right now, but that's how we were communicating with the dr requestor. >> i appreciate you explaining that, thank you. >> thank you, commissioner antonini. >> thank you, in terms of the whole parking issue, we had our
dealing with the narrow street here, i believe this street was when the subdivision was ut put in probably in the 20's, it was basically residential use and i don't think if cars were parked on both sides of the street, it's essentially a one way street, one car has to wait before the other one goes at least in that little segment, so if you do reinstitute parking, it would have to be on one side because of the chance of collisions going through there and the other thing i would like to see happen is the project sponsor works with the neighborhoods and with the ocean avenue neighborhood association with staff as far as the final appearance of the building on the outside. i mean, presently, i think the existing building, i know it's being renovated and turned into a restaurant but it's not really very attractive and the paint job doesn't help it much and certainly it would be nice
if, you know, make sure that whatever appearance the restaurant has is one that's compatible with the residential style of the maybe and, you know, clearly it's a restaurant, but it has to have a quiet appearance, not something that calls attention to itself and what is really a residential neighborhood. >> commissioner sugaya? >> yes, i think before we go off implementing commissioner hillis' idea which i am opposed to, i'm looking at my phone here which i'm not supposed to have on i guess, but faxon isn't the only street tho goes all the way through to the two boulevardsqrut.
miramar and also plimoth, i'm sure they have parking issues. >> okay, that's enough. >> but i'm not in favor of making anything one-way, i can tell you that, living on a one-way street, i'm trying to get it back to two way. it's not something we can resolve and i'm sure mta will hopefully take a closer look at this and try to resolve the issues with the neighbors. >> you can call the question, please. >> commissioners, the motion on the floor is to take discretionary review and approve the project requiring street trees on the property side, on that motion, commissioner antonini >> aye. >> commissioner borden? >> aye. >> commissioner hillis?
>> please rise for the pledge of allegiance. >> mr. president i would like to call roll, please. >> president mazzucco? >> present. vice president marshall. >> he is in route, i can see that he has tried to contact me twice. >> commissioner dejesus? >> excused. >> commissioner chan? >> present. >> commissioner kingsley. >> present. >> commissioner oftus is in route. and with us tonight is the
chief of please and the director of the fcc. >> thank you, and welcome to the september 19th. san francisco police commission meeting, please call line item number one. general public comment. >> the public is now welcome to address the commission on items that do not appear in the agenda but are in the subject matter of the commission. the speaker shall address to the commission as a whole and not to individual commission. under the police commission rules of order during the public comment, commissioners are not to respond to the public or make a right of response. the police and personnel should refrain from entering into discussions during the public comment. please limit your comment to three minutes. >> public comments?
>> san francisco, open government. on the overhead, i sent you the copy of the constitution of the united states which i feels compels to bring this to a commission meeting. members of the public who are listening, this is a copy of the current agenda and as you see, there it says as most city agendas do, know your rights under the sunshine ordinance. what we have here is an order of determination, dated march 1, 2011 against the police commission. and i will read it in part. findings of fact (inaudible) law, judging from the testimony
and evidence presented (inaudible) comments to the commission constituted criticism protected by 67-15 d. and the commission abridged that in violation of the same. i say that because i knew it wouldn't be unusual to have the same thing happen again and last week at this meeting you did the same damn thing you did at that meeting. you rearranged your agenda moving public comment to the third item. and as a result a number of people whose names i got were forced to leave without leaving public comment because they had timed their attendance to the agenda that you had sent out saying that the public comment would be the first actual item on the agenda. this is nothing but manipulation in an effort to cut down public comment. i think that you guys sit up there and you see people and if
you see a lot of people and you don't want to hear public comment, you just simply rearrange the agenda without any reason and force people into not being able to comment. when this happened to me, i tried to make a comment about it and i was told i couldn't make a comment because i wasn't allowed to say certain things. and i thought, well my god. people on a commission in san francisco actually think that sitting on a commission gives them a right to supercede the constitution of the united states. how amazing. how amazing it was to find out later that 6 out of the 7 members were attorneys and that the person who had stopped my public comment, your current president, was a member of the california bar, practicing, attorney, former prosecutor, and i thought gee i wonder how he managed to get through law school without any constitutional law courses. and the answer is he didn't.
he stood there and told me something every other member, all of those other attorneys sat there silently, said nothing when he told me... (inaudible) >> sir, your time is up. >> that clock was never turned on. >> yes, it was. >> your time is up. >> you will do anything to shut down the public, won't you. you are a dishonest bunch of crooks. >> the next speaker? >> asking for perhaps in the future an update on the cit training, how it is going. i think that is pretty important. giving the contentious issues surrounding tasers, i think that it would be wise to be very transparent in your processes, any forms or anything, or movements that you guys are making regarding that,
i think that it would be wise to keep it transparent and let the community be involved. as i said it is a contentious issue that people care about. that is just about it. that cit that there are people that are watching that are following along and that we do... i know that you guys are being fairly transparent, we appreciate that you keep it that way and we know everything and hopefully we don't get as angry as other people do. thank you. >> thank you, very much. for your comment. >> any further public comment? >> hearing none, the public comment is now closed. please call line item number two. >> line item two. report and announcements, two a, chief's report discussion, review of recent act tiflts. update on time line of occ policy recommendations regarding dgo 0.05 response in per suit driving and dg, 0.01, use of force and dgo 0.21, language access services for lep persons. >> good, evening, chief how are you? >> my report to my review of
recent activities will be pretty previous tonight and then we will make the presentation and have a discussion regarding the policy recommendations. unfortunately last friday night we suffered a homicide in the bay view. an 18-year-old was killed from gunfire. the upside is that homicide made that case and an arrest was made. unfortunately, a 17-year-old was the suspect in that homicide. again, the homicide unit and the officers on the street, bay view station et al continue to do a great job making not only clearing these cases but making arrests and sending a message that it is not okay to do violence in san francisco. however we did suffer another one. we had another homicide in the mission, over the weekend and we have a suspect identified in that case. however, not in custody. we are actively seeking him. over the weekend, it was the anniversary of occupy on
monday, but activities started on friday. there was to be a bbe-in as it was called near the stadium and it unfolded throughout the weekend throughout golden gate park and ended up at a sleep over in the west end of the park not far from the wind mills. the officers were engaged with the folks demonstrating all weekend long, there was a cooperation and an agreement that it would disban on monday and then they would join the larger demonstration that took place in the financial district. that event took place in the early morning and then wound its way all the way through the day and much of it was on television. again, i think that kevin caslin and biel and all of the officers that worked it in the late night did a great job. it did come to a head. at 6:00 when they were going to ceremony yusly burn debt papers
and to burn gasolines and it was too much gasoline and so it would have essentially made a bomb and so they talked with the occupiers and kind of explained delicacy of it. >> and it did not prevail. they did have a champagne bottle that believed to be a molotov cocktail it had a wik in it. it never deployed the cocktail and that was that. no arrests were made. and no uses of force were recorded. it was largely a peaceful demonstration. with regard to the weekly crime statistics, violent crime continues to be down in the city, 1 percent, however, property crimes and i am in the training this week with other chiefs, is up 8 percent. a lot of that is believed
possibly to be related to 8109. and the realignment. and so again, we work with all of our other city partners to try to get a handle on those that have been taken advantage of the property crimes. >> we can move on to the policy occ recommendations. >> any questions for the chief? thank you very much. >> good evening, greg mccekrin, here to discuss three of the general orders. i willing covering two of them,
5.05, and 5.01. and as i complete that i will call up the relations to discuss the order. >> before i discuss the two orders, 5.01 and 5.05. to give you a background, the written directive unit which falls under my command to the unit that assists with the changes or adoptions of policies and orders and department bulletins. there are a number of general orders that the department has looked at and continue to look at to make policy changes to. and we are working our way through that process. there has been a push to have a number of officers back on the street as our numbers are down and i would like to say that our written directives unit is at the staffing levels that it should be at. but currently we are unable to have it at that because of the
need for the officers on the street for public safety. that having been said, deputy chief tomy oka and i conducted interviews today for the written directives unit with the intention of bringing two or three officers into the unit to assist us with not only the following revisions to the general orders and updates to the department bulletins but to get us into that process in a quicker manner. and i'm hoping that we will be able to identify those officers and get them into the unit as soon as possible. the ultimate thing that we would like to do, is have some of that turned over to the civilian hires so we can have the officers back on the street. but wait that the hiring standards are in the department, we are just not able to hire the civilian personnel at this time with a
reduced rate to have the officers on the street. but that is what our ultimate hope is in the near future. so i will just spend a couple of minutes discussing where we are on department general 5.05 and 5.01. i will start with 5.05 and once i am done with that you can ask any questions that you have. 5.05, the per suit has been a hot topic, general order for the commission and the department for a long time. there have been a number of drafts that have been written, a number of meetings that have been conducted over periods of time with a lot of changed personnel. i'm happy to say that about 6 months ago, i was able to get together with sam marian from the office of complaints my written directives unit and a couple of the city attorneys where we sat down and went through all of the drafts that we had, came up with what we
thought was consolidated, defined productive, useful terms for the general order. >> we went back and forth, probably had upwards of a half a dozen to a dozen meetings. our last meeting was yesterday, where we came to a agreed upon conclusion on what we believe is the final draft for 5.05. all of us had a copy of it today. and the responses that i got by e-mail is that everyone is happy with that draft and... >> why don't we have a copy of the draft? >> where is the draft that you are talking about? >> i will be more than happy to e-mail a copy of that draft to you tomorrow. >> what we have been trying to do is come up with what we believe is going to be a draft that we will present to the police officers association for a meet and confer to the presentation of the command staff and to the commission so that we can present everything that is in the general order with the hopes that you will
then approve it as a new general order for 5.05. that draft which i will e-mail to all of you first thing in the morning is going to be sent to the police officers association for them to review for a short period of time so that we can have them meet and confer so that we can go on to the presentation of the command staff. >> with that i will answer any questions that you have on 5.05. >> i understand that we have (inaudible) issues. but you are asking me to ask you questions about that that i have not seen. i understand that it is in the drafting stage, so stamp draft on it. when you present documents to the commission to look at, it would be helpful to have the document. and i understand that is not just your call. i understand... i'm trying to
be understanding. how are we going to ask you questions. there is nothing to ask questions. >> i apologize, that is my fault. not the captain's fault. >> as i said to the captain, i understand that is not your fault. >> i will make sure in the future any time that there is a review of a policy recommendation, that whatever the last most current is, asking the commission's patienc e and i will apologize for the captain. >> we don't have a draft of 5.01 or 5.20 or the lep. without having the drafts we can't any coherent questions. so it would be possible to take this item off the calendar for this evening? >> i do want to get an update on where they are. because we want to see the draft and we want to know where are they right now and what is the time line and i was waiting to see if you would give us a time line, you said soon. do you have any sense of the
time line for this last that you just talked about the pursuit driving? >> thank you, commissioner, our expectation is that it will be sent to the police officers association with a directive vote for two weeks with a meet and confer if they have any questions it is a presentation to that point to the command staff so that each of them can have about a week to look at it. the presentation to them whether there are any questions or changes that they have concerns over can be addressed and it is a final presentation to the commission for adoption. i'm hopeful that that can be within the six week period from now. >> so, two weeks for the poa, one week for the command staff, and then an additional three weeks? >> i would say probably two weeks for the command staff for them to look at it and for us to do a presentation with them and then a couple of weeks to ask to get on the agenda item. >> the touchier issue is the meet and confer with the poa. so hopefully we can get it done
in one meeting but sometimes is takes more than one meeting. >> if we... a couple of agenda items from here, we are going to talk about calendaring future items i want to get a sense of when we will calendar it? >> end of october, beginning of november? >> if you would like to schedule it so that it is on the calendar, we will make every effort to make that date and we can always move off of that if we can't make it. >> thank you. >> okay, for general order, 5.01. chief tamioka and i met with director hicks and marian on a policy recommendation that occ had for a change to 5.01. we had that meeting a few months back. and in the last couple of days, we received e-mail from the occ with some recommended language. i have not had an opportunity
to sit down with the chief although, he has some ideas on some questions for that. that we want to go over with the city attorney, but more importantly than just that one word language. i think that we agree that 5.01 on the use of force has more than just this minor change that needs to be made to it. because, they are looking at changing a word, but we are also looking at addressing the entire policy. we don't want to just change one word and not address the other issues. we should be able to address that at least temporarily through a department bulletin that would change language if we decide to agree for a language change and look forward to a complete reversion of 5.01. but we have not sat down and had that discussion at this time. >> dr. hiks, you had a question? >> oh, i asked president mazzucco and members of the commission, i only hope that you can reserve some time f